Lawrance v MacDonald [2005] FCA 135 (23 February 2005)

Last Updated: 4 March 2005

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Lawrance v MacDonald [2005] FCA 135

AROHA LAWRANCE v AMANDA MACDONALD
NSD 212 of 2005

ALLSOP J
23 FEBRUARY 2005
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD212 of 2005

BETWEEN:	AROHA LAWRANCE APPLICANT
AND:	AMANDA MACDONALD RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	ALLSOP J
DATE OF ORDER:	23 FEBRUARY 2005
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. the application filed on 15 February 2005 be dismissed


















Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD212 of 2005

BETWEEN:	AROHA LAWRANCE APPLICANT
AND:	AMANDA MACDONALD RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	ALLSOP J
DATE:	23 FEBRUARY 2005
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1 Application is made before me today under Order 46, rule 7A of the Federal Court Rules, consequent upon a Deputy District Registrar having written to the applicant, Ms Lawrance, on 28 January 2005, stating, in substance, the following:

The application which was sought to be filed on 14 January with an affidavit of Ms Lawrance, also dated 14 January, had been referred to Jacobson J for his consideration and direction under s 46(7A) of the Federal Court Rules and his Honour directed that the Registrar refuse to accept or issue the above documents without the leave of the judge first having been obtained.

2 Application is made to me for the purpose of seeking the leave referred to in the letter of the Deputy District Registrar. The application is one that leave be granted to Ms Lawrance to file the earlier application. The application for leave (dated 15 February 2005) was supported by another affidavit of Ms Lawrance also dated 15 February 2005, which reads as follows:

1. I am seeking to file an application under s 39B of the Judiciary Act Cth 1903 in relation to an officer of the Commonwealth, Amanda MacDonald.

2. The application deals with some aspects of unlawful discrimination and victimisation that have arisen, or in all probability appear to have occurred, in the course of my employment at the Social Security Appeals Tribunal.

3. I do not know whether or not I was screened on the programme Frontline on 11 December 1995. I had no reason at the time to think that I would be treated in this manner. I have not observed colleagues of mine treated in this manner, in any workplace. I have never seen colleagues of mine in a state of undress. It would not have occurred to me that colleagues of mine might observe me in a state of undress, nor to defame me or misrepresent me, privately or publicly, in any workplace.

4. I do not have a psychiatric disorder. I am not mentally ill, mentally disordered nor do I have a disability.

5. I believe that Amanda MacDonald has, along with others, actively encouraged others to believe that I do or did have a disability, mental illness or disorder, where none in fact existed. I believe that she has done this in relation to my employment at the Social Security Appeals Tribunal, Centrelink Administrative Law Section, the Refugee Review Tribunal, and possibly elsewhere as well. I did not believe or suspect that this was occurring at the time that I was employed in these workplaces. I am not now, and have never been in the past, diagnosed with any disability, impairment, mental illness nor psychiatric disorder.

6. I have in the course of complaints made to the NSW Medical Board dated 27 and 28 January 2005 asked whether records exist that psychiatrists might have access to, in relation to the period covered by my employment at the Social Security Appeals Tribunal. I believe that Dr Rob McMurdo and Michael Pasfield may be able to shed some light upon whether or not I was screened on Frontline on 11 December 1995, and my other allegations and statements in relation to conversations and events may also be confirmed in this way.

7. In filing an application under s 39B of the Judiciary Act, I am exercising my lawful right to protect my reputation, in and outside of the Commonwealth and its workplaces, and to seek lawful remedies in relation to those responsible for committing and inciting unlawful discrimination and victimisation.

3 The application sought to be made is not pleaded but is in the form of an application identifying that the grounds are found in the accompanying affidavit. The form of the order sought in the application in respect of which leave is sought as follows:

1. Amanda MacDonald is prohibited from communicating any information about the applicant with a Commonwealth employee, any New South Wales state based employee or public servant, or any other person, in accordance with an order under s 39B(1A)(c) of the Judiciary Act 1903, s 94(2) of the Sex Discrimination Act Cth 1984, s 42(2) of the Disability Discrimination Act Cth and the Disability Services Act Cth 1986, the latter two Acts referring to the wrongful imputing of a disability which the applicant does not have, has never had and has never been diagnosed with. She is further prohibited from giving uncorroborated evidence about the applicant in hearings before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and elsewhere.

4 Interlocutory relief is sought in the two paragraphs as follows:

1. Amanda MacDonald is restrained by injunction immediately from communicating any information about the applicant with any Commonwealth employee and with anyone else.

2. The Federal Court will not publish its decision.

5 The affidavit in support deals with a number of matters, which conformably with paragraph 2 of the claim for interlocutory relief, I will not deal with in any detail. However, I need to identify some general matters to explain my reasons.

6 The applicant is a former member of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal. It appears from the affidavit that she has a number of complaints as to how she has been treated by officers of the Commonwealth, and in connection with the carrying on of her duties at the Tribunal, and in respect of treatment which she says has been both demeaning and defamatory. It is not clear from the accompanying affidavit what is able to be alleged by the applicant from personal knowledge and what is assertion based upon her view of events which may not be founded in her actual knowledge. It is far from clear from the affidavit what precisely is alleged against the various people. The matters alleged, however, are serious ones in that there is embedded within the affidavits’ allegations assertions of behaviour which are both serious, generalised and repeated.

7 The structure, it seems to me, of the claims so far as they are able to be identified is quite inappropriate for relief under s 39B(1) of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth). There appears to be no conduct in respect of which it has been coherently identified that there could have been jurisdictional error in the sense required for the issue of the writs referred to in subs (1), or for the injunctive relief in subs (1). There is a claim for relief based upon subs (1A) of s 39B and in particular par (c), that is, a matter arising under a law made by Parliament.

8 As I understand the affidavit and what has been put before me today the applicant complains, or wishes to complain, of what are perceived as serious breaches of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth), the Disability Services Act 1986 (Cth) and the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth). In the current form of the application supported by the affidavit, in part by reason of the generality and content of the affidavit and the inability to distinguish what is said from any personal knowledge and, secondly, from the lack of any clarity in the structure of the claim, in my view it would be mischievous and vexatious to allow an application in this form to proceed. That is not to say that to the extent that there are said to be breaches of the relevant legislation to which I have referred, that an application properly brought under the Rules, in particular supported by a pleading, may not be in such a form as to amount on its face to a document which is not vexatious or oppressive.

9 The applicant for the leave, Ms Lawrance, should understand, therefore, that the view that I have taken of the application that she has sought to file is not a declaration of her as a vexatious litigant, it is a view I take of the form of the application and supporting affidavit.

10 The application filed on 15 February 2005 be dismissed.

I certify that the preceding ten (10) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Allsop.

Associate:

Dated: 4 March 2005

The applicant appeared in person.
Counsel for the Respondent:	Andras Markus (Slr)
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Australian Government Solicitor
Date of Hearing:	23 February 2005
Date of Judgment:	23 February 2005